Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris

Recommendation: no GPLv3 for Solaris

Following the above, one big question arises :

" ge... those guys wil be making all their contributions only for private systems! "

Hey, but they can already do that in GPLv2,i. e., chance their code in their private systems, but is prone to confusion and abuse.

a) The problem is that when someone starts asking fees for patents in their GPLv2 code, the reaction will be - bla bla bla... ; and the answer - f**k you, pay me!. All developers will be running erasing the patented bits, because they will be easly identifiable, but the patent holder will be smiling to the bank with the money of all the traped users and distributors.

In GPLv3 there should be clearly *explicit* that patented bits in code will be non-fee for **any public acessable GPLv3 repository**, i. e., not mandatory because copyright law cant invalidate patent law, and in private patent holders can do as they please. But mandatory in PUBLIC repositorys because patent law cant invalidate copyright law neither.Its the contract aspect of the beast.

What all vendors must do is contract with their users a non patent litigation clause, therefore assuring the legality of their code base even if they knowingly sale systems with patents in them, that they have cross-licenced or otherwise for private use. GPLv3 should make all this very clear, because what it will do is for developers to make their public repositorys in GPLv3, to guarantee the same thing.(not only IBM/RH/SUN or other big pockets will be doing sales)

GPLv2 SHOULD BE *PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH GPLv3* IF THERE ARENT ANY PATENTS IN THAT GPLv2 CODE.IF THERE ARE, A CLEANING AND OR CHANGE TO GPLv3 WILL DO.

b) The other problem will be when someone starts asking money for the keys of their DRM schemes for their GPLv2 based systems. The reaction / answer can be the same. The most obnoxious outcome is that developers will be prevented from freely using their own contributions, if those happen to get into a system that ask money for the key. If all hard/system vendors get in that spree, then developers making there own distros wont cut the problem, and they will be like in that movie where Hannibal Lector feeds them their own brains.

So in a GPLv3 there should be clearly *explicit* that any DRM protected system/sub-system will have a non-fee public key applyed for code in **any public acessable GPLv3 repository**, i. e., not mandatory because copyright law cant invalidate any DMCA laws of this world, and in private key holders can do as they please. But mandatory in PUBLIC repositories because any DMCA law cant invalidate copyright law neither.Its the contract aspect of the beast again.

If any country mandates that all hardware/systems be selled with a private key, certified by a third part authority, know that GPL is being legally banned from that country, no matter if v2 or v3, and no matter the smiles or campaigns of the politicians. Due to the imense distributed nature of networks, including Internet, immense technical and user protests problems will arise, but nevertheless all cards will be upon the table. Then please dont treat Ma$ter as another vendor, but as the BIG BROTHER powerhouse instead. FUD for FUD the media will always report MS having more than 90% of the market, even if all the administration starts selling CD copys hand to hand at a big discount, in the local market.

What all GPL vendors must do is make sure that there always be enough hardware systems for public GPLv3 OSes repositorys, or else risk destroying the all Open Source movement.I wont contribute a single line of code if i have to pay for a key to run it, much less for run it in a different machine. LinuxBIOS should be considered as an option as an integral part of the Linux systems to asure a mean of protection against abuse.

Contracts of GPL vendors with their users, is their own business, if they make their private keys for private systems non distributables, i. e., dont gain from making a public repository a means of private gain. GPLv3 should make all this very clear, because what it will do is for developers to make their public repositories in GPLv3, to guarantee free acess. But here in a legally GPL banned situation, there will be no guarantees of legally running systems. none. (IBM/RH/SUN or other big pockets will be doing all the sales).

GPLv2 SHOULD BE *PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH GPLv3* IF THERE ARENT ANY PRIVATE KEYS TO SYSTEMS/SUB-SYSTEMS IN THAT GPLv2 CODE. BUT THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE BECAUSE KEYS ARE APPLAYED "AT POSTERIORI".

"" DRM is a technical solution for a political problem, that with the DMCA makes a technical solution to it illegal. So all the admired and esteemed proponents of a technical solution to it are, i'm affraid, wrong ""